Subject: RE: [PWOT] mpls-in-ip

From: "tom k. johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:12:13 -0500

Tom.

Another point to be considered...

The work by Martini and Malis in PWOT defines methods for mapping Frame
Relay, ATM, and TDM into MPLS.  

Currently, MPLS can only be carried over ATM, POS, and the like.

Perhaps your draft could be used to extend these adaptation functions to
operate over IP networks as well.

-Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of tom
worster
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:38 AM
To: PWOT Email List (E-mail); CEOT Email List (E-mail)
Subject: [PWOT] mpls-in-ip

i'd like to ask the to-be-working group three questions 
relating to this draft (it should show in the repository
soon, a url is given below):

1) is an mpls lsp an example of a "pseudo-wire?"

2) can ip be regarded as "transport?"

3) should mpls-in-ip be a standards track work item for
pwot?

in which the terms pseudo-wire and transport express the 
scope of the wg.

my opinions are.

1) yes. if an atm connection, frame relay connection, 
ds1 or oc3 are considered pseudo-wires then i think
an mpls lsp can reasonably be considered a pseudo-wire.

2) yes. the usage of "transport" in the pwot group seems 
to be more general than other uses. if mpls (which is a
sub-ip protocol) is a transport protocol along side tcp,
udp, rtp (which are all super-ip), etc., then i don't
see why ip can't also be regarded as providing transport.

3) if i'm right on the above two points then i think
pwot would the right place to write a standard 
encapsulation of mpls in ip, should the ietf want such 
as standard.

http://thefsb.org/draft-worster-mpls-in-ip-03.txt

c u
fsb

_______________________________________________
pwot mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwot

_______________________________________________
pwot mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwot